Thursday, January 17, 2013

Using Children in Politics

So, flanking yourself with children in a live press conference is NOT using children but mentioning children in an ad is?

If the NRA ad in question showed pictures of the President's girls or even mentioned them by name, I might have a problem with it. But introducing the CONCEPT that a President whose children have 24/hr armed protection opposed protection of layman's children in schools is more than valid. The ad never even specifies what sex the "kids" are nor does it even say how many "kids" there are...and actually ends with a reference to ALL the kids of Congress.

A perfect example of the liberal manufactured rage we talk about so often came from Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter who called the ad, "reprehensible, disgusting, and outside the bounds of human dignity." Really? Like I said, the ad never names them, doesn't show their pictures or allude to which school they attend. So, "outside the bounds of human dignity," Mayor Nutter? How about having firemen in Philly working for 3 years with no contract? That's a bit more reprehensible, wouldn't you say?

But, what about this:

"Flanked by four children from across the country, President Obama today unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence in America through an extensive package of legislation and executive actions not seen since the 1960s." (source)

It's okay to use real, live children to push an agenda, but not to use an idea of "kids" to push back against it?

There is an interesting petition currently on the WHITEHOUSE.GOV website that is up to 25,000+ signatures:

"Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians."

I found the little Indian girl with the "WTF am I doing here?" look on her face to be quite amusing.

As to the ads, it's a perfectly good question. Particularly, when he joked about running for a second term to ensure Malia had armed protection now that she's old enough to kinda start dating. (very stupid thing to say, even before Newtown.)

The EOs he issued were worthless. Particularly the ones regarding Federal "gun control". They're already on the books and already in force. The problem, is that no one actually uses them in prosecution cases (Fast and Furious being one of them). When they start using the laws on the books, maybe we'll have less of an issue, and maybe we won't need new laws. If we do, they can discuss them then. Till then, they need to get their heads out of their collective ass.

Then nate move to new zeland or something. Maybe alaska. Most of america you need armed guards. Hell most of north america and south america you need them. Stop being a vagina and whining about reality. There are mean people in the world. Wash that sand out of your clitoris, pick your vagiana off the ground anf open up a can of man.

"This whole situation is twisted -- I don't think I want to live where we need to have armed guards everywhere."Sounds like something one of those idiot 60s Hippys would have said.My God Nit, you're a child.

Most of the world you need armed guards. And in most places, because you can't own weapons, you wish you had armed guards to protect you from your Benevolent Leader. Most people born and raised in the US are clueless about what people are really capable of and what they are really like. In some ways that is a good thing. It means they've been well protected.

Exaclty. We common scum must not have weapons or security for ourselves so that our betters at sidwell friends are a little safer with thier multiple layers of armed security. We shall lay our weapons ***Eyes Averted!*** at the feet of our masters, trusting them to protect us. In Obama we trust.\

Yeah, I'd rather cut my own balls off. Fuck all liberals who would disarm us.

And then there is "A child that pays your fucking medical bills. A child that pays your social security. COM, you are the child sucking at my teat."

YOU HAVE IT EXACTLY BACKWARD NIT.

I paid for my Social Security and medical bills IN ADVANCE over the 53 years I worked and paid the "premiums" for Social Security and Medicare "insurance".

I have told you time after time that I will be happy to forego the benefits of that "insurance" if I can have the money that I and my employers paid the government, together with the earnings that money would have made had it been actually invested almost anyplace.

If we vote en masse for gun confiscation, can the government promise that another Newtown will never occur? No? So fuck you. If you think not having a gun will protect you, by all means, remain unarmed.

What you paid has nearly no relationship to what benefits you are reaping. The elderly, since they are paid to sit on their asses, vote disproportional to their percentage of the population. Whenever congress wants to get reelected, they vote some more medicare and SS benefits, and vote to tax the rest of us more (Thanks Reagan, Bush W.). Medicare is the biggest problem, because the cost of medicine has grown faster than GDP for the past 30 years. I guarantee your Medicare benefits far outweigh anything you put in.

When did you retire? Guessing you worked most of your career paying far less than the 6.25% I've paid my entire career.

It is quite ironic that you'll state so clearly that the government has a spending problem, but when faced with the two choices of cutting defense or current entitlements, you can't accept either. You complain that future cuts aren't cuts, but that means their are no meaningful cuts. Sure you want to get paid out in cash, but after how many years of paying $1-3 dollar copays to go the doctor? $3 to go to the emergency room. How many years of receiving your dole from the social security administration? Have you ever done the calculations? I'm guessing not, most likely you are just another uninformed voter.

Nit, you obviously either just skim read my posts or have reading comprehension too low to understand what you do actually read.I'm not going to repeat what I said before for a fourth time.

I doubt Zelda will either.

You have often demonstrated that you have mental deficiencies. One that stands out is repeating the same delusions in response to every question or comment. Other neurotics often do this too. You are truly like a player piano.

You are the beficiary of government "investment" in your generation, using the money it forced Crabby to pay. So really, you were sucking at his ... ahem ... teat.

Umm.. Sure, but now the government is benefitting from that investment, as I'm paying a fuckload in taxes. What will the investment we are making in you ever pay off? How can you argue that you are entitled to my money now but I am entitled to less benefits when I retire? Obviously the answer is that you aren't entitled this level of benefit, but hey, that wont keep you from taking it.

this "investment" has not been successful in terms of revenue because the government is in massive debt

Uhh No, the government is in massive debt because of tax cuts and expensive invasions of foreign nations. Oh yea, and the entitlements that you are enjoying.

You are paying Crabby's bills only because the government stole his money to give you things. That is not Crabby's fault. That is the government's fault.

We live in a representative republic, and COM has had the ability to vote for much longer than me. He is far more responsible than I am. Furthermore the government did not "steal" nearly enough money to justify the benefits you are receiving. Therefore you are actively "stealing" from my by accepting them.

I am entitled to your money for the same reason your parents were entitled to mine.

I have been retired for three years. The mortality tables say I should live another 17 years.

The government is in debt because the Marxocrats created obligations that remain fixed even when the economy is down. We have the problem of variable revenue to pay fixed costs. The Marxocrats never cared because they always intended to borrow to make up the difference. The borrowing, will be paid with devalued currency, so the actual cost will be paid by whoever has savings (generally not those in the Marxocrat base), people like me.By the way, I have opposed Social Security/Medicare since I realized what is going on decades ago.

free0352, I don't think that I have ever claimed that there are no parasites in my generation. The infestation cuts across all age groups.I keep saying that the highest national priorities are Conservative (i.e. rational) economic and national security policies together with smaller government generally. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of our achieving those goals.

There are a lot of parasites in your generation, Crabby. The ones in the government have gotten us into this mess. You cost more than the government was willing to take from you, probably hoping stealing from corporations would make up the difference.

I'm going to give you some advice as someone who generally agrees with your fiscally conservative principles.

Firstly, you will never get your money back. Secondly, you will not get the benefits you were promised. If it is not covered by medicare or your regular insurance, pay for it out of pocket. Don't wait.

Thirdly, you better end this conversation because Nate is starting to talk about his milky teats.

Firstly, you will never get your money back. Secondly, you will not get the benefits you were promised. If it is not covered by medicare or your regular insurance, pay for it out of pocket. Don't wait.

"My argument is that my parents were an investment, and a successful one." Since the use of the word "investment" to describe your parent's sponging is an absurd distortion of the language, your argument is too.

Nit, "What is the payback period for you?" should be "What is YOUR payback period from the Government?" keeping in mind that MY "investment" in the government never got the market rate of return.

My argument is that my parents were an investment, and a successful one.

You can't possibly argue that your parasite parents were a successful investment when the government is in massive debt.

More people have accomplished what your parents have without the government having to "invest" in them and those are the people your parents and the government used. And it's not enough that you pay the same taxes as people who didn't take money from the government. You have to pay it back.

Hearing about your sad sack parents makes me angry. Jethro's parents came here with nothing and took nothing. They've paid more in taxes than your parents, they saved their money to send 3 kids to college - 2 of whom got scholarships, and their kids have paid and will pay more in taxes than you, and yet you call yourself a success. You have chronically low standards.